Nice chart. Let's get real work done now.
On Nov 7, 2012, at 1:40 PM, Ray Racine wrote:
> Personally I'm am far less interested in ball-park performance positioning between Racket and some Scheme. Nice as they all are, and I've personally spent time with all of them. Larceny, our summer fling was special. I'll never forget you.
>> Let's talk Heavy Weight Division here: Racket - Haskell - Scala - Clojure
>>http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u64/which-programs-are-fastest.php?calc=chart&sbcl=on&ghc=on&ocaml=on&clojure=on&racket=on&yarv=on&python3=on>>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 1:04 PM, Matthew Flatt <mflatt at cs.utah.edu> wrote:
> At Tue, 6 Nov 2012 07:29:13 -0500, Marc Feeley wrote:
> >
> > Le 2012-11-06 à 3:50 AM, Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96 at yahoo.com> a écrit :
> >
> > > I am very impressed that Racket is as fast as it is. I had expected the
> > compilers such as Gambit to be much faster than the VM-JIT system. If Racket
> > had a 64-bit x86 assembler available, I might even consider using it instead of
> > Gambit.
> > >
> > > It's impressive to note the change in relative performance for Racket
> > > over past 3 years since you published the benchmarks on the blog --
> > > Racket has gone from slower than Gambit on the majority of benchmarks,
> > > sometimes by a significant margin, to faster on most of them, and
> > > never more than 2x slower (except ctak).
> >
> > For your information, it seems that the change in relative
> > performance has more to do with the change in C compiler over the
> > past 3 years than anything else.
>> That does not appear to be the case.
>> I've run the benchmarks on Linux, using both 32-bit and 64-bit builds
> (more details below):
>> * For 32-bit build, I get results much like the ones I posted earlier,
> suggesting that for this benchmark suite, the choice of gcc versus
> LLVM for Gambit doesn't matter that much.
>> * For 64-bit builds (where I'm running 64-bit Gambit for the first
> time), the results are similar to what Brad reported for similar
> benchmarks.
>> I've also run the old benchmarks on MzScheme v4.2.4 and Racket
> v5.3.1.5. The results show that Racket has become mostly faster on
> these benchmarks over the last three years.
>> My goal is not to characterize any implementation as X% better than
> another, and we all know the limits of benchmarks. Still, if anyone is
> surprised by Racket's performance on these benchmarks, then I would
> like to be as clear as possible: Racket's performance is competitive,
> and it continues to improve.
>> ----------------------------------------
>> Machine:
> Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-2600 CPU @ 3.40GHz
> Linux 3.0.0-21-generic #35-Ubuntu SMP
> Fri May 25 17:57:41 UTC 2012 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
>> GCC:
> gcc version 4.6.1 (Ubuntu/Linaro 4.6.1-9ubuntu3)
>> Gambit:
> v4.6.6, built from source, configured with `--enable-single-host'
>> Racket:
> v5.3.1.5 built from source, default configuration
>> MzScheme:
> v4.2.2 built from source, default configuration
>> Benchmarks:
> For Racket and Gambit:
> At https://github.com/plt/racket> in collects/tests/racket/benchmarks/common
> commit 891932074c
> For Racket and MzScheme:
> Benchmarks included in PLT Scheme v4.2.4
>> Results enclosed:
> rg64.html --- Racket and Gambit, 64-bit mode
> rg32.html --- Racket and Gambit, 32-bit mode
> rm64.html --- Racket and MzScheme, 64-bit mode
> rm32.html --- Racket and MzScheme, 32-bit mode
> where times are averages over three runs
>> ____________________
> Racket Users list:
>http://lists.racket-lang.org/users>>> ____________________
> Racket Users list:
>http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4373 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.racket-lang.org/users/archive/attachments/20121107/f2bf4eff/attachment.p7s>